Incremental validity of WISC–III profile elevation, scatter, and shape information for predicting reading and math achievement.

Watkins, Marley W.; Glutting, Joseph J.

doi:10.1037/1040-3590.12.4.402

Cited by 52 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If external criteria such as academic achievement in reading, mathematics, and writing are significantly predicted by the first-order or CHC Stratum II factors (verbal-crystallized and nonverbal-fluid-visual dimensions) after accounting for prediction by the higher order CHC Stratum III factor (general intelligence), then those lower order dimensions may be of importance for predictive and interpretive purposes. Incremental validity studies of more "comprehensive" measures of intelligence, however, have not supported many first-order factors or CHC Stratum II factor-based scores (Glutting, Youngstrom, et al, 1997;Kahana et al, 2002;Konold, 1999;Ree & Earles, 1991;Ree et al, 1994;Watkins & Glutting, 2000;Watkins et al, 2007;Youngstrom et al, 1999). It may be that even the longer, more "comprehensive" measures of intelligence will require additional subtests to capture sufficient variance at the first-order or CHC Stratum II level to provide additional meaningful prediction of academic achievement beyond the second-order CHC Stratum III general intelligence factor.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although some have argued that clinical assessments require that a "comprehensive" battery of intelligence tests be administered to fully understand the nature of performance deficits in the context of individual profiles, research on various subtest analyses (i.e., subtest strengths and weaknesses or unique profiles) reveals them to lack sufficient reliability and validity (Canivez & Watkins, 1998, 1999Glutting, McDermott, Konold, Snelbaker, & Watkins, 1998;Glutting, McDermott, Watkins, Kush, & Konold, 1997;Macmann & Barnett, 1997;McDermott, Fantuzzo, Glutting, Watkins, & Baggaley, 1992;Watkins & Canivez, 2004). The incremental validity (Haynes & Lench, 2003;Hunsley, 2003;Hunsley & Meyer, 2003) of factor-based scores of more "comprehensive" measures of intelligence has been questioned and found lacking (Glutting, Youngstrom, Ward, Ward, & Hale, 1997;Kahana, Youngstrom, & Glutting, 2002;Konold, 1999;Ree & Earles, 1991;Ree, Earles, & Treachout, 1994;Watkins & Glutting, 2000;Watkins, Glutting, & Lei, 2007;Youngstrom, Kogos, & Glutting, 1999). When estimating general intellectual functioning without regard to examining subtest performance, patterns, or profiles, intelligence tests with fewer subtests may provide more time-and costeffective yet valid assessment.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Construct validity of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence and Wide Range Intelligence Test: Convergent and structural validity.

Canivez¹,

Konold²,

Collins³

et al. 2009

School Psychology Quarterly

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

) and the Wide Range Intelligence Test (WRIT; Glutting, Adams, & Sheslow, 2000) are two well-normed brief measures of general intelligence with subtests purportedly assessing verbal-crystallized abilities and nonverbal-fluid-visual abilities. With a sample of 152 children, adolescents, and adults, the present study reports meaningful convergent validity coefficients and a latent factor structure consistent with the theoretical intellectual models both tests were constructed to reflect. Consideration of the hierarchical model of intelligence tests and issues regarding test interpretation are presented.Keywords: construct validity, intelligence, WRIT, WASI, hierarchical structure Brief assessment of general intelligence may serve a variety of clinical (e.g., screening and reevaluation) and research purposes. Although some have argued that clinical assessments require that a "comprehensive" battery of intelligence tests be administered to fully understand the nature of performance deficits in the context of individual profiles, research on various subtest analyses (i.e., subtest strengths and weaknesses or unique profiles) reveals them to lack sufficient reliability and validity (Canivez & Watkins, 1998, 1999Glutting, McDermott, Konold, Snelbaker, & Watkins, 1998;Glutting, McDermott, Watkins, Kush, & Konold, 1997;Macmann & Barnett, 1997;McDermott, Fantuzzo, Glutting, Watkins, & Baggaley, 1992;Watkins & Canivez, 2004). The incremental validity (Haynes & Lench, 2003;Hunsley, 2003;Hunsley & Meyer, 2003) of factor-based scores of more "comprehensive" measures of intelligence has been questioned and found lacking (Glutting, Youngstrom, Ward, Ward, & Hale, 1997;Kahana, Youngstrom, & Glutting, 2002;Konold, 1999;Ree & Earles, 1991;Ree, Earles, & Treachout, 1994;Watkins & Glutting, 2000;Watkins, Glutting, & Lei, 2007;Youngstrom, Kogos, & Glutting, 1999). When estimating general intellectual functioning without regard to examining subtest performance, patterns, or profiles, intelligence tests with fewer subtests may provide more time-and costeffective yet valid assessment. Development of brief multidimensional (i.e., verbal and nonverbal estimates) measures of intelligence evolved out of the inadequacies of both single index intelligence screeners and short forms developed from comprehensive intelligence tests noted by A. S. Kaufman and Kaufman (1990) and Silverstein (1990). Among the problems identified were spuriously high correlations between short forms and the full- Data from Jason M. Collins' and Greg Wilson's specialist in school psychology theses were combined for analyses in the present study.We thank Peter W. Hartmann for helpful comments on a version of this article, and also thank Daniel Bialick for providing an electronic copy of his dissertation for review.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Construct validity of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence and Wide Range Intelligence Test: Convergent and structural validity.

Canivez¹,

Konold²,

Collins³

et al. 2009

School Psychology Quarterly

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The relation between early, overall cognitive performance (at or before kindergarten) and later school achievement is stronger for reading skills than it is for math skills (Stevenson & Newman, 1986); so assessments of broad skills alone, such as IQ testing, are not useful for identifying children with specific MLD. The pattern or scatter of IQ subtest scores is also not predictive of math (or reading) achievement (Watkins & Glutting, 2000), despite use of sub-test scores to define specific syndromes in clinical and school settings (as reviewed by Watkins, Kush, & Glutting, 1997). Thus, to identify MLD, it is necessary to identify behavioral criteria that are not captured by broad-level achievement or intellectual testing.…”

Section: Predicting Poor Math Achievementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kindergarten Predictors of Math Learning Disability

Mazzocco

Thompson

2005

Learning Disabil Res Pract

221

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to address how to effectively predict mathematics learning disability (MLD). Specifically, we addressed whether cognitive data obtained during kindergarten can effectively predict which children will have MLD in third grade, whether an abbreviated test battery could be as effective as a standard psychoeducational assessment at predicting MLD, and whether the abbreviated battery corresponded to the literature on MLD characteristics. Participants were 226 children who enrolled in a 4-year prospective longitudinal study during kindergarten. We administered measures of mathematics achievement, formal and informal mathematics ability, visual-spatial reasoning, and rapid automatized naming and examined which test scores and test items from kindergarten best predicted MLD at grades 2 and 3. Statistical models using standardized scores from the entire test battery correctly classified ~80-83 percent of the participants as having, or not having, MLD. Regression models using scores from only individual test items were less predictive than models containing the standard scores, except for models using a specific subset of test items that dealt with reading numerals, number constancy, magnitude judgments of one-digit numbers, or mental addition of one-digit numbers. These models were as accurate in predicting MLD as was the model including the entire set of standard scores from the battery of tests examined. Our findings indicate that it is possible to effectively predict which kindergartners are at risk for MLD, and thus the findings have implications for early screening of MLD.The primary aim of the present study was to examine whether cognitive data obtained from psychoeducational or neuropsychological assessments of kindergarteners can effectively predict math achievement outcome in third grade. Although this study of predictors was not a screening study per se, the findings from the present study may have direct implications for early screening of risk for math learning disability (MLD). The findings may also contribute toward efforts to identify core deficits that underlie MLD. Relative to knowledge about reading disability (RD), there is less known about the core deficit(s) of mathematics disability, and there are few evidence-based screening tools available for detecting risk for poor achievement in mathematics. The proposed project was designed to help address these gaps in researchbased practice. The Need for Early Identification of MLDIt is important to identify risk for MLD, because-like poor reading achievement-poor math achievement is a risk factor for negative outcomes in both childhood and adulthood. Education level achieved in adulthood is associated with math performance level (Delazer, Girelli, Grana, Requests for reprints should be sent to Michèle Mazzocco, KKI West Campus, 3825 Greenspring Avenue, Painter Building, Top Floor, Baltimore, MD 21211. Electronic inquiries may be send to mazzocco@kennedykrieger.org. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptLearn Disabil Res ...

show abstract

“…Moreover, Naglieri, Goldstein, Iseman and Schwebach (2003) found no differences on the WISC-III between children with ADHD and children with Anxiety /Depression. Other studies provided little or no support for the use of WISC-III subtest pattern in the diagnosis of LD (Daley & Nagle, 1996;Watkins, 1999;Watkins & Glutting, 2000). Also, the SCAD and ACID profiles were not found to be valid diagnostic indicators or important predictors of academic achievement .…”

Section: Predictive Validity and Clinical Utility Of The American Wismentioning

confidence: 99%

Independent Validation and Clinical Utility Study of the Hellenic WISC-III Using a Greek-Cypriot Sample

Souroulla

Panayiotou

2017

JETS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Hellenic WISC-III (Wechsler, 1997) is currently the only standardized and officially published tool for the assessment of the intelligence of children and adolescents in Greece. The test is also used with caution in Cyprus, among Greek speakers, but no specific norms exist for use in this country. The purpose of this study was to provide evidence of the qualities of the test using an independent Greek-Cypriot sample and to support its utility in the psychological evaluation of Greek speaking children in Cyprus. The participants were 151 public school children aged 9:1 to 15:8 years. Correlations between the subtests of the WISC-III and the Scale IQs and, also, correlations between scores on the WISC-III and achievement measures as well as the educational level of parents provided evidence of convergent -construct validity. Low correlations between scores on the WISC-III and measures of psychopathology supported the instruments divergent -construct validity. Also, an exploratory factor analysis further supported the construct validity of the test. Moreover, the study provided evidence in support of the predictive validity and clinical utility of the test by examining the cognitive profiles on the Hellenic WISC-III of children with learning difficulties and identifying the WISC-III subscale scores that best distinguish them. This evidence is very important for clinicians in Cyprus but, also, further supports the international evidence about the utility of the Wechsler ability scales.

show abstract

Incremental validity of WISC–III profile elevation, scatter, and shape information for predicting reading and math achievement.

Cited by 52 publications

References 38 publications

Construct validity of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence and Wide Range Intelligence Test: Convergent and structural validity.

Construct validity of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence and Wide Range Intelligence Test: Convergent and structural validity.

Kindergarten Predictors of Math Learning Disability

Independent Validation and Clinical Utility Study of the Hellenic WISC-III Using a Greek-Cypriot Sample

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About